90% of what Microsoft does was either copied ( and 'extended' ) from someone else, or just outright bought.
I haven't seen a single example in this thread that doesn't fall into the 'copied and extended' part of your sentence.
That's how innovation happens, they build off the work of giants.
Now, if you made a ok game that required mouse and keyboard on the ps2... how many people would actually purchase it?
That's the problem with control-x on console arguments, it is a catch 22. Until they are basically standard on consoles nobody will develop for them. Until developers develop a lot of games that require it, nobody will purchase it.
So, until the customer base has a mouse and keyboard installed as standard (ie in the basic box), then your point is, well, pointless.
As someone who just attempted to jump from a windows users to a windows/linux user (suse actually), I think I have some valid points of view on the matter.
I am a pretty informed user when it comes to geeky things. I am moderately old school when it comes to computers (go c=64s), and have been using MS products since DOS and then though windows for workgroups, 3.11, 95, 98 and now xp.
I develop on *nix at uni all the time (sun os), I use vi(m) (my brain can't absorb both vi and emacs) and code in C/C++ and Java. I regard developing on *nix as a good experience, or at least it doesn't make the development of the stuff I want to develop any more difficult (in fact it generally makes it easier).
However, there is a huge difference between using *nix as a development platform and using for home needs. In fact I have problems describing the deep seated loathing that arises every time I am forced to use *nix at home (I currently have my desktop as a *nix machine and I regret it every time I want to do something.
Not only is my monitor (some Hitachi thing). I was stuck in 1024x768 and in 60hz for 2 weeks until I eventually discovered how to edit my config files manually. Needless to say that when I tried to do this I was lucky I had a laptop to ssh into my machine and fix my config (cos I suck). Also, while I am willing to live without features, the scroll wheel on my Logitech wireless mouse isn't one of them (it took me a week to find a guide (thanks!)). While I didn't need to ssh in to fix that problem, I did break my mouse at least once.
I some how managed to break firefox (I think it is because it is looking for a gnome lib, which my local unix geek told me not to install), so I am using k-node. Which is horrible by the way, who ever coded that abortion of a program should fix the middle click on a tab to not cause an error from a malformed url.
Heck, pretty much every non-developer thing I want to do on *nix has way less features and polish than the majority of things that I use on windows. In fact sitting here right now I am trying to give some positive feedback about my ladder jump to *nix... all I can come up with is the mail client that comes with suse and open office. Even then I like thunderbird and office either as much (probably more).
All in all, people won't change to *nix because of some dumb decision by Microsoft. *nix is different, very different. These are core differences too, often products for *nix are made by expert users for expert users.
I want to like *nix, I really do. Yet, migrating to *nix is more pain than gain and until the user experience for technical, non-nix users becomes less painful I don't see how 'every day' users have a chance at it.
Often what seems to be 'functional' interfaces for expert users have major usability issues with the intended users.
OS products often fall into this trap, as the people who develop them (expert as a user can be) make something that is 'functional' for them and mostly unusable for the majority of people who may want to use the product.
That is why designers can be useful, and why designers with technical (designer/engineers) are so useful.
Also, to the grandparent: A good interface isn't one that is so flashy that it has huge usability problems, instead it is one that does consider aesthetics and functionality to make a usable product for all of its users.
The first thing I learned in my introduction to design was always design on paper first. Paper designs are lightwieght and people don't care if you throw sketches of stuff in the bin.
From a building point of view, a Architect doesn't realy design concreate, or the lift mechanisms, They are engineering jobs.
What a Architect realy does is finds out what the customer actualy wants (not requirment specs), and looks at how the users are going to interact with the product and its spaces.
Then they go talk to a few engineers about some ideas they have, just to get a reality check. Sure they have a set of rules of how much weight a section of re-enforced concrete can support. Sure they know how much space that they need to keep for the lifts. Why do they know that? A engineer tells them so, either in person, in notes, or with rules that architects have to live by.
Information Architects are pretty much the same. They are supposed to design (design not spec) a product that the user realy wants and needs. They are supposed to look at the interactions that the end users are going to need, and work out why people stop at the virtual spaces and elimite un-wanted bottle necks and introduce spaces where people are supposed to stop.
Most Information Architects should be fair coders, because lets be frank if you can't code, then when a real code monkey tells you that something can't be done you won't understand why. However that doesn't indicate that a Information Architects job is engineering.
So realy all of this just says that realy architects live in 3 worlds. The world of the programmer, the world of the designer and the world of the customer liasion.
If they are not... then they suck.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, tell them how n00b they are while you are at it. I am sure they will respond to you.
or you could go to the post office and submit in the traditional manner.
90% of what Microsoft does was either copied ( and 'extended' ) from someone else, or just outright bought. I haven't seen a single example in this thread that doesn't fall into the 'copied and extended' part of your sentence. That's how innovation happens, they build off the work of giants.
This is pure racist garbage, without substance.
Now, if you made a ok game that required mouse and keyboard on the ps2 ... how many people would actually purchase it?
That's the problem with control-x on console arguments, it is a catch 22. Until they are basically standard on consoles nobody will develop for them. Until developers develop a lot of games that require it, nobody will purchase it.
So, until the customer base has a mouse and keyboard installed as standard (ie in the basic box), then your point is, well, pointless.
I am a pretty informed user when it comes to geeky things. I am moderately old school when it comes to computers (go c=64s), and have been using MS products since DOS and then though windows for workgroups, 3.11, 95, 98 and now xp.
I develop on *nix at uni all the time (sun os), I use vi(m) (my brain can't absorb both vi and emacs) and code in C/C++ and Java. I regard developing on *nix as a good experience, or at least it doesn't make the development of the stuff I want to develop any more difficult (in fact it generally makes it easier).
However, there is a huge difference between using *nix as a development platform and using for home needs. In fact I have problems describing the deep seated loathing that arises every time I am forced to use *nix at home (I currently have my desktop as a *nix machine and I regret it every time I want to do something.
Not only is my monitor (some Hitachi thing). I was stuck in 1024x768 and in 60hz for 2 weeks until I eventually discovered how to edit my config files manually. Needless to say that when I tried to do this I was lucky I had a laptop to ssh into my machine and fix my config (cos I suck). Also, while I am willing to live without features, the scroll wheel on my Logitech wireless mouse isn't one of them (it took me a week to find a guide (thanks!)). While I didn't need to ssh in to fix that problem, I did break my mouse at least once.
I some how managed to break firefox (I think it is because it is looking for a gnome lib, which my local unix geek told me not to install), so I am using k-node. Which is horrible by the way, who ever coded that abortion of a program should fix the middle click on a tab to not cause an error from a malformed url.
Heck, pretty much every non-developer thing I want to do on *nix has way less features and polish than the majority of things that I use on windows. In fact sitting here right now I am trying to give some positive feedback about my ladder jump to *nix ... all I can come up with is the mail client that comes with suse and open office. Even then I like thunderbird and office either as much (probably more).
All in all, people won't change to *nix because of some dumb decision by Microsoft. *nix is different, very different. These are core differences too, often products for *nix are made by expert users for expert users.
I want to like *nix, I really do. Yet, migrating to *nix is more pain than gain and until the user experience for technical, non-nix users becomes less painful I don't see how 'every day' users have a chance at it.
Often what seems to be 'functional' interfaces for expert users have major usability issues with the intended users.
OS products often fall into this trap, as the people who develop them (expert as a user can be) make something that is 'functional' for them and mostly unusable for the majority of people who may want to use the product.
That is why designers can be useful, and why designers with technical (designer/engineers) are so useful.
Also, to the grandparent: A good interface isn't one that is so flashy that it has huge usability problems, instead it is one that does consider aesthetics and functionality to make a usable product for all of its users.
Almost every single student at my university uses their pop3 mailing address from home (which is almost always a third party isp).
I also use my work email from home.
Heck, my mother has 3 mailing accounts: Her personal one, the one her and her husband share and her school account.
For the record; my mother is not a geek.
The first thing I learned in my introduction to design was always design on paper first. Paper designs are lightwieght and people don't care if you throw sketches of stuff in the bin.
Then incremental steps to a ever closing goal.
From a building point of view, a Architect doesn't realy design concreate, or the lift mechanisms, They are engineering jobs. What a Architect realy does is finds out what the customer actualy wants (not requirment specs), and looks at how the users are going to interact with the product and its spaces. Then they go talk to a few engineers about some ideas they have, just to get a reality check. Sure they have a set of rules of how much weight a section of re-enforced concrete can support. Sure they know how much space that they need to keep for the lifts. Why do they know that? A engineer tells them so, either in person, in notes, or with rules that architects have to live by. Information Architects are pretty much the same. They are supposed to design (design not spec) a product that the user realy wants and needs. They are supposed to look at the interactions that the end users are going to need, and work out why people stop at the virtual spaces and elimite un-wanted bottle necks and introduce spaces where people are supposed to stop. Most Information Architects should be fair coders, because lets be frank if you can't code, then when a real code monkey tells you that something can't be done you won't understand why. However that doesn't indicate that a Information Architects job is engineering. So realy all of this just says that realy architects live in 3 worlds. The world of the programmer, the world of the designer and the world of the customer liasion. If they are not ... then they suck.